שלום - הוספתם את התיאור "תחילת מסלול" לשוויצריה הקטנה, אבל המפה הציבורית לא מיועדת להערות אישיות כאלה. המסלול עצמו מסומן על המפה.

שלום! שכחתם כאן את name:he

שלום, סימנתי את החוף הזה כ-camp_site

שזה בגדול חניון לילה. מקום שמאפשר לינה ולרוב ביערות. האם זה בכוונה או טעות תיוג?

I haven't forgotten about this just delayed due to time constraints. I'll reapply the attraction tag to the interesting boulders as soon as time permits.

From place=*

Populated places are sometimes mapped as both areas and nodes to record both the outline and the point that is commonly understood to be the centre. When a settlement is mapped both as an area and as a node, the two can be combined into a relation to make clear they refer to the same place: When the area corresponds to an administrative boundary, the place node can be added to the relation with a role label role

If there is agreement that huge residential areas are not good practice, maybe we should follow this for places with well defined admin boundaries?

Here's a relation of the admin boundary of new York

relation/175905

The place tag is on the node node/61785451, and it is a "label" of the relation.

Daliat el carmel already has a place node node/278476860

"P.S., I do not see good coverage of the Daliat el Karmel village with landuse=residential objects."

You're right about that part. Generally eliyahu seems to be actively splitting big landuses to around Haifa but it seems this wasn't done here yet.

I am suggesting that the current perimeter of way/60356145 has no correlation with anything.

it was originally mapped as the rough residential area of daliat el carmel, which has since grown outside of that perimeter.

For example, here is a school in Daliat el carmel outside this perimeter: way/449731624

Maybe it should completely match relation/1403095 now that it isn't marked as a residential area.

Clarification: My concern is that the perimeter of way/60356145 is now meaningless. It used to be a rough outline of a residential area. Now that the residential area is finegrained, it has neither on-the-ground meaning nor administrative meaning. The administrative perimeter is relation/1403095

You have a typo on way/1540732890

There is a tag in name:en

You have a typo on node/14027476387

Tecnion => Technion

typo: I intended to type landuse=residential not area

I also observed you removed "landuse=residential" from way/60356145

Although I generally agree with the idea of not surrounding a place with a massive landuse=area, the boundaries of this polygon are now meaningless.

way/60356145 has no administrative meaning. The official administrative boundaries are at relation/1403095

way/60356145 was originally mapped to be where the physical crawl of the buildings roughly ends. Without the landuse=residential this has no meaning anymore.

Hi. Thank you for the edits!

I noticed you are still using Mapbox Satellite and I can definitively say ESRI imagery is more up to date in the areas you touched. Is there a reason you prefer Mapbox satellite?

Who?

Thank you for the detailed followup! This clears it all up. I have two minor nitpicks for you to consider.

1. In weird cases like these I sometimes add a "note" or "note:name" tag. Which is a note that other mappers see but end-users do not. Something like: note="The trailhead sign literally has שבילים מחברים-היער, המעונות written on it. This is not a description"

2. The act of inventing translations needs to be weighted carefully as it's often harmful.

As a fictional example, a mapper might translate "רחוב הכלניות" to something like "Anemone Street" even if no sign ever mentions that name and no one actually uses that name or searches by it. That kind of translation is misleading and a transliteration ("haCalaniyot") would better serve the map.

I suppose this is not such an issue with these minor trailheads but it's something to keep in mind.

Naming guidelines are covered in more depth here: osm.wiki/Israel#Naming

Regarding 1: The carmel region is notoriously misaligned because the terrain is nonflat. Your most reliable anchor is the GPX tracks, not the existing mapping.

Again, this guide is your friend: osm.wiki/Aerial_imagery_quickstart

On a few occasions I moved the existing roads slightly in Haifa to properly align them with the GPX tracks.

Also, I noticed you used Mapbox imagery from time to time, from my experience in Haifa ESRI is newer in most regions if I remember correctly.

Minor typo: I meant to say "it is definitely better to keep the editor warnings than..."

regarding 3: It is DEFINITELY to keep the editor warnings than it is to introduce false data only to satisfy the editor's warning heuristics. Fords are a very specific physical feature that you usually see only by going outdoors.

The longer term solution is fixing the badly mapped, auto imported waterways by going outdoors. I do this in the Carmel/Haifa region from time to time but it's a slow process. Previously I had proposed removing the bad quality auto-waterway-import but that didn't take off: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-removal-of-intermittent-waterway-in-the-carmel-region/126821

Since I have no strong opinion on boulders in particular and my goal was to cleanup obvious tourism=attraction issues, I will re-add tourism=attraction for all boulders that seem notable or whose removal of tourism=attraction might be controversial.

Sound good?

I generally agree that in some cases tourism=attraction is justified alongside the more specific tag.

But is there anything special about that specific boulder סלע השטן (node/9197188592)?

For example, please compare it to:

node/1064563108

node/10211513517

node/1064563167

I think either they all warrant tourism=attraction (if so, why?), or they all do not.